
\,^^ 




\<>^ 

'^^r 






.e ''*-. 


















^ "^ <r '^ 







• /\ 




. , "^ - • . » 




h5" -** 



^^•^^^ 














o_ %" 






















°o 






4> •.'.•♦ ^ 




^-'^^O'-^ "^o.-'o^^^A^ ^'J^^O*-^ %-: 

'"''•\ ^°^:^^%°- ./V^iA co\c^.-^-o 












>" o^--*/*^^ ,0^ , 







♦ .K^^ 




The CrisiK, Uh MCesponsibiiitiea ami JPeritM. / /^ 

^y — -^^yTC^ f • y '^ 



OF THE 



FON. WILLIAM N. H. SMITH, 

• OF NORTH CAROLINA. 



DKLIVKRBD IN THE HOUSE OP UEPBKSENTATlVBfl," FERBL'ARY 8, 1861. 



The House having under consideration the report from the 
select committee of thirty-three — 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, said: 

Mr. Speaker : I rise to address you and the members of this House, 
and through you and them the constituencies we represent, under 
circumstances of painful embarrassment and of grave, deep responsi- 
bility. We cannot be insensible to events which, transpiring withiji 
the brief interval since our assembling at the present session, have 
marked their indelible impress upon the history of the country. We 
cannot banish from view the evidences of a great and still progress- 
ing movement, whose effects, here as elsewhere, are constantly be- 
fore our eyes. 

Thirty of our associates have withdrawn, at the call of their re- 
spective States, and are no longer of our body. The expressive si- 
lence which responds to the roll-call of their names — these vacant 
seats so recently occupied — are the ever-present witnesses of the 
changes which have been produced in our national condition. 

In the presence of these facts, and while the process of disintegra- 
tion is thus rapidly going on — when we see State after State sepa- 
rating themselves, by the action of conventions within their limits, 
from the Confederacy, and sending delegates, as did the colonies in 
the Revolution, to another congress, now sitting in a distant city, 
to organize anew and independent form of government — I have 
asked myself, what have we, the Representatives of the, people, been 
doing? What measures of paciiieationhave we been initiating and 
maturing to arrest the further progress of the movement? What to 
restore to the dismembered brotherhood the members broken from it? 

The people will hold their Representatives to a just and fearful 
accountability for their inaction at such a crisis. Already have they 
commissioned another congress and charged it with the trust of com- 
posing dissensions which threaten the overthrow of Government, 
and whose adjustment has proved too formidable a work for us. Un- 
til a very recent period, I have felt a great and increasing despond- 
ence as to a pacific solution of our sectional dissensions. Yet, since 
Virginia suggested the movement, so generally responded to by the 
States still remaining in the Union, which has brought in council 
commissioners of peace and conciliation from so large a part of the 
Confederacy, I have had a reviving hope in these indications of a de- 
termination among the masses of the people to take their diiJicul- 
ties into their own hands, that they might yet be adjusted by other 
agencies than our own. While we, upon whom primarily the duty 



rests, are engaged, day after day, iu discussing the causes and ex- 
tent of the disruption which has taken place, instead of providing 
some adequate and sufficient remedy for the grievances which have 
produced it ; while such has been our conduct here, what has beei-a 
the result elsewhere ? At this moment, my own State is calliu^ a 
convention of her people to deliberate upon the- most momentous 
issue ever submitted to their determination, and in its consequences 
involving their entire future relations with the Federal Government. 
Elsewhere, in the border slaveholding States, the popular mind is 
occupied with the same perplexing topic, and is intently considering 
the question to which of the parts of a permanently dissevered Re- 
public their safety, duty, and interest, will impel them to form a 
connection. 

In the course of this debate it lias been frequently asked by mem- 
bers of the Republican party who have spoken : "Why is all this 
commotion ? What has produced the general distrust and alarm 
now pervading the southern people Y" And it is said by them, 
"we have elected our candidate to the Presidency of the United 
States in strict conformity with the requirements of the Constitu- 
tion, and this is the only act done or menaced to inflame resentments 
that are rending the Union." Undoubtedly an adverse result of a 
presidential cawvass, as it is manifestly an insufficient cause, cannot 
fairly be supposed to produce the effects upon the minds of the 
southern people which are ascribed to its agency. This, however, 
is a very imperfect statement of the case. The difficulty lies not in 
the issue of an election, but in the means and influences by which 
success has been achieved. The fact is significant mainly from its 
connection with others preceding and accompanying it. To be 
properly estimated and understood, it must be seen in its relations 
and dependencies. In a confederacy of States, differing so much 
in institutions, interests, and habits, as those which form the Union, 
sectional parties cannot be otherwise than dangerous to the public 
tranquillity, and their permanent domination will inevitably lead to 
the overthrow of Government, or the separation of its constituent 
parts. 

This has been the concurring opinion of wise and patriotic men 
from the very foundation of our present system to the present hour. 
In his Farewell Address to his countrymen, and in words of fervid 
entreaty, graven upon every American heart, Washington remon- 
strated earnestly against the formation of geographical parties. 

In an address delivered by Alillard Fillmore at Albany, in the 
year 1856, immediately after the organization of the Republican 
party, in view of the consequences of its possible success, he spoke 
as follows : 

'• We see a political party presenting candidates' for the Presidency and Vice Presi- 
dency Kclocted for the first time from the free States alone, with the avowed purpose of 
electing these candidate?; by suffrages of one part of the Union only, to rule over the 
whole United States. Can it be possible tiiat those who are engaged in such a measure 
can have seriously reflected upon the consequences which must inevitably follow, in case 
of success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our southern breth- 
.'■en would submit to he governed by such a Chief Magistrate?" 



Ami then revGi\siu<2f the case, tor the piirpOHe of illustration, he 
proceeds : 

"Sappo30 that the South, having a mujoritv of thr; electoral votei«, should declare that, 
they would only have slavoholdt>rs for I'residout and Vice President, and should elect 
such by their exclusive sullVago.Uo rule over u.s at tliu North : do you think we would 
submit to it 7 No ; not for a moment. And do you believe that your southern brethren 
are less sensitive on this sui)ject than you are, or less jealous of their rights 7 If you do, 
let me tell you that you are mistaken. And therefore you must see, that if this sectional 
party succeeds, it leads inevitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric, reared by 
our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeatiied to us as a priceless inherit"- 
aace.' 

Ida not cite this testimony to justify the act of national disrup- 
tion, as I am sure such was not the purpose of the patriot and 
statesman who uttered it, but as prophetic of the irritating effect of 
a sectional ascendancy upon the southern mind, and the conse- 
quences to which it would lead. 

Let me refer again to a similar warning given by the nominee for 
the Vice Presidency of the constitutional Union party in his 
letter of acceptance, of the 29th day of .May last. Mr. Everett 
writes : 

" I suppose it to be the almost universal impression — it is certainly mine — that the 
existing state of affairs is extremely critical. Our political controversies hare substan- 
tially assumed an almost purely sectional character — that of a fearful struggle between 
the North and the South. It would not be difficult to show at length the perilous nature 
and tendency of this struggle ; but I can only say on this occasion that, in my opinion, 
it cannot be much longer kept up without rending the Union.'" 

And again : 

"Can such a state of things long continue, especially with the ever-present risk of new 
causes of exasperation? I own it seems to me impossible, unless some healing course is 
adopted, that the catastrophe which the mass of good citizens deprecate, should be much 
longer delayed. A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into action throughout 
the Union, or it will assuredly be broken up." 

In a letter written by Mr. Bell on the 6th of December last, he 
uses the following strong and emphatic language in reference to the 
Republican party and its recent triumph: 

" I have often ex[)res.sed the opinion that the success of a purely sectional party, or- 
ganized upon any principle, sentimeut, or policy, in strong antagonism to the interest-* 
and sentiments of the opposing and defeated sections, would deeply imperil the Union : 
nor did I believe, until the result of the October elections became known, that a majority 
of the northern people would ever so far disregard the counsels and warnings of W.ish- 
ington as to elect the candidate of such a party to the Presidency. The election of Mr. 
Lincoln, by a sectional party, organized and sustained upon the distinctive j^rinoiple of 
opposition to slavery, as it exists in the southern States, and avowing the policy ol" its 
repression and final extinction, (by prohibiting its extension into the Territories,) w.i.s a 
bold experiment upon the temper and forbearance of the South, and upon the strength of 
their loyalty to the Union. This experiment, if not conceived in a spirit of disunion, was 
made with a reckless disregard of consequences. No greater strain upon the ligaments 
which bind the two great sections of the country together could be devised, than the 
attempt to establish or inaugurate a permanent Government policy upon such principles. 
The late Harrison Gray Otis, of Boston, one of the most distinguished and able of the 
New England statesmen, when called upon, In 1835, to give the weight of his name and 
influence in checking the further progress of a rabid abolition spirit, then beginning to 
diffuse itself over Massachusetts and other States of the East and North, in a speech 
delivered in Faneuil Hall, did not hesitate to express the opinion that the plans and de- 
signs of the abolition societies, or, as they were then called, anti-.^lavery associations, 
contemplated such an interference with the domestic policy and institutions of the 
South as -would be a violation both of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and were 
in fact revolutionary In their character and tendency." 

And agaiu : 



" 1 am not ftble to discriminate betwer^en the character, spirit, aud tendency of the 
anti-slavery principle and the slavery-repression policy of the Republican party, consid- 
ered in connection with the torrent of inflammatory publications aud invectives against 
the domestic institutions and social relations of the South, which is daily poured forth 
by Republican journals and orators, and the character, tendency, and designs of the abo- 
lition societies, and the incendiary publications which find their way to the public under 
their auspices. The only essential difference I can perceive between the spirit and the 
tendency of the doctrines and avowed policy of the Republican party, and those of the 
doctrines and avowed policy of the abolition societies, is in the extent and degree of the 
mischiefs which may be inflicted upon the South, by one or the other, and the deliberate 
intention to inflict them by the abolition societies, which it would be unfair and unjust 
to impute to the whole body of the Republican party. But both are obnoxious to the 
charge of pursuing a policy which is in violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the 
Constitution, and revolutionary in its tendency. The policy of both tends strongly to 
stir up internal strife in the southern States, to excite dissensions and insurrections 
among the slaves, to produce alarm and a sense of insecurity, both as to life and prop- 
erty, among the white population of every southern State, and finally, to influence the 
whole South to revolt against the Government. The degree and extent of the mischief 
which the Republican party may be able to inflict by its anti-slavery policy, for reasons 
which I need not state, it will be readily acknowledged will be tenfold greater than any 
which the abolition society have it in their power to inflict. 

"That 1 do not unjustly charge the Republican party with having adopted a policy 
which, in its character, tendency, and practical operation, is in conflict with the spirit, if 
not the letter, of the Constitution, can be made manifest in a very few words. One of 
the most important objects to be accomplished by the adoption of the Constitution, as 
declared in the preamble, was to ''insure domestic tranquillity;" and the power was 
expressly given to the Federal Government, by that instrument, to " .suppress insurrec- 
tions." The simple announcement to the public that a great party at the North, op- 
posed to slavery, has succeeded in electing its candidate for the Presidency, disguise it 
as we may, is well calculated to raise expectations among the slaves, and might lead to 
servile insurrection in the southern Stales. If such an event, which is more than pos- 
sible, should really happen, it might become the duty of Mr. Lincoln to restore the 
tranquillity which "the policy of his party had disturbed, and to suppress an insurrection 
which the same policy had excited." 

I reproduce these opinions from eminent men of unquestioned 
fidelity to the Constitution and Union, not with the purpose of en- 
couraging hasty and precipitate action for the dissolution of the 
Government, but to show the grounds of those apprehensions, al- 
most universally felt in the South, for the safety of their institu- 
tions, under an Administration controlled by the influences and 
principles which have brought this into power. 

With such testimony to the dangerous character of the political 
party now advancing to the possession of the executive department 
of the Government, and, by the withdrawal of the Senators and 
Representatives from so many States, to the control of the Congress 
of the United States, with what propriety are we called upon to 
point out the special acts of provocation for the deep and pervading 
excitement which has driven some and may force other States to 
seek escape from impending danger in the fearful experiment of 
another Declaration of Independence ? Those who confine their 
attention to particular infractions of the Constitution, whether con- 
sisting in positive wrong or disregarded duty, and as such, seek to 
palliate or defend them, very imperfectly comprehend the nature 
and extent of the grievances under which the people of the South 
labor. While it is true we charge repeated violations of the Con- 
stitution, committed not only by individuals and unrecognized bod- 
ies of men, but by State legislation, the extent of the injury is not 
to be measured merely by the amount of practical inconvenience 



which they occasion, but by the value of the constitutional safeguards 
for State and individual rights which they subvert. 

The cause of existing disturbances lies far deeper than thie. 
The southern people see" the fruit of thirty years of anti-slavery agi- 
tation. They realize in the present condition of things, the obvi- 
ous results of an excitement increasing through many years, which 
has rent asunder communions and associations, and now become an 
element of political strength, has culminated in a sectional triumph. 
They see in the enactment of personal liberty laws, and other kin- 
dred measures calculated and intended to obstruct the execution of 
a law to carry into effect a plain mandate of the Constitution for 
the renditiou'to the owner of fugitive slaves, the manifestation of a 
spirit reckless of its obligations and rebellious to its authority. 
They discover in repeated instances of refusal upon the part of State 
executives, upon slight and friv^olous grounds, to surrender persons 
charged with high crimes, when the otfense with which they were 
charged was in some way connected with the subject of slavery, in- 
dications of a disposition to disregard or evade another important 
constitutional duty imposed in explicit terms upon every State in 
the Union. And now, in the assertion and defense of a dogma 
which repudiates property in slaves, and denies to the citizens of 
nearly half the United States the equal right of removal with their 
labo/to the common territory, to possess and cultivate it, they find 
proofs of a purpose to deprive them and their property of the care 
and protection of a common Government. 

These and similar acts of aggression upon the admitted rights of 
the slaveholding States exhibi't the controlling sentiment of a party 
organization now become predominant at the North, which, in car- 
rying out its anti-slavery policy, has not hesitated to break through 
the barriers of constitutional obligation, and inspires among their 
people jealousy and distrust at its approaching advent to place and 
power. That radical differences of opinion should exist among the 
several States in reference to African slavery is not at all surpris- 
ing ; but that these differences occasion a necessary antage-uism of 
interest, is disproved by the general prosperity all have enjoyed in 
the Union under one government for more than seventy years. 

The Chicago platform enunciates a proposition (and it has been 
sustained in debate here) which has been the prolific sourcjof most 
of the difficulties and dissentions by which the nation is now dis- 
tracted and divided. It declares " that the normal condition of all 
the territory of the United States is that of freedom," and then de- 
nies the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of 
any individuals, to "give legal existence to slavery in any of the 
territory of the United States." And it has been insisted, in argu- 
ment here, that while freedom is tlwis the national statm of the 
country, slavery is an exceptional condition, the ipere creature of 
local and municipal law, and does not and cannot exist beyond the 
limits of their jurisdiction. This view of the domestic institutions 
of the States places them in confiict upon the common territory, 
and tends strongly to sectionalize political parties. 

Freedom, in the sense of the dogma referred to, is not that free- 



6 

dom which every American citizen claims as his birth-riglit, and 
belongs to every State alike ; but is applied to the African race in 
the United States. Let me then examine the proposition, and in- 
quire if it be true that freedom, and not slavery, is the normal con- 
dition of the race upon this continent, and especially in territory 
covered by the Constitution ; and to what extent property in slaves 
differs from other property, in being the creature of municipal law? 

Slavery was introduced, as history proves, into this country under 
the sanction of international law, by the concurring agency of all 
the maritime nations of Europe, at an early period of its settlement. 
It existed, with few exceptions, in every European colony and among 
the several West India Islands, not by virtue of any positive enact- 
ment, but by the consent of the people. Slaves were brought over 
from Africa, landed upon our shores, sold and bought as such, and 
held by the colonists, as was every other kind of property, under the 
universal acquiescence of the people. By this slow and silent pro- 
cess the institution was planted upon the continent and took root 
in our soil. The first laws which are found upon the statute-book 
recognize its legal existence only in providing for its security, and 
giving better protection to the rights of ownership. 

At the date of the Declaration of Independence, Afiicau slavery 
bad an admitted legal statics in every one of the thirteen colonies ; 
and when the Federal Constitution was formed, in twelve of the 
States. In fact slaves were then found even in the excepted State, 
(Massachusetts,) although long afterwards its courts held the sys- 
tem abolished by a declaratory clause in the State constitution. It 
came to an end wherever else it has since ceased lawfully to exist 
only in consequence of express acts of prohibitory legislation. The 
necessity of such enactments is full proof of the universal prevalence 
of the system in their absence. 

The «^a^w8 of the African — not a voluntary emigrant, but im- 
ported from his own to this continent under a*^ traffic sanctioned by 
the consent of nations — was that of slavery; and such his condition 
remained until changed by positive provisions of municipal and 
local law. The Federal Government was created for the protec- 
tion of the rights of person and property as found in the States that 
made it ; not where State authority afforded already ample guar- 
antee, but beyond this jurisdiction, upon the public domain, and 
upon the open sea, over which its flag floated. As this was its 
structure, and these the ends which its founders had in view, so 
this was the policy of those who were charged with its early ad- 
ministration. 

There is abundant evidence that slaves, like other property, have 
been equally objects of governmental care and defense. I will ad- 
duce some of it. In the provisional treaty made between the 
United States and Great Britain, at Paris, on the 30th day of 
November, 1782, it is provided that — 

" All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Britannic Mitjesty, with 
all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any 7iegroes 
or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and 
fleets from the said United States, and from every fort, place, and harbor within the 
same." 

4 



And in the definitive treaty of peace, agreed on at J^arib, the 3d 
day of September. 1783, and signed by John Adams, B. Franklin, 
and John Jay, on the part of the United States, it ia stipulated in 
article seven that — 

''His Britannic Majesty bIiuH, with all convenient Hpecd, and without causing any dr- 
struction. or carrying away any negroes vr other property (if the American inhabitants, 
withdraw all his armies," &c. 

In the treaty of Ghent, concluding a peace after our second war 
with Cireat Britain — to which, in our behalf, are jiarties the dis- 
tinguished names of J. Q. Adams, J. A. Bayard, H. Clay, Jonathan 
Russell, and Albert Gallatin — made December 24, 1814, and rati- 
fied by the Senate on the 15th day of February following, it it^ 
agreed, in article one, that certain property captured during the 
war — 

•' Shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, and without 
carryingaway any of the artillery or other public property originally captured ia the 
said forts or places, and which shall remain tlierein npon the exchange of ratifications of 
this treaty, or any slave or other private property." 

- Here, then, not only as slaves declared to be property, but the 
Government recognizes its right to protection, and aftbrda that pro- 
tection by distinct treaty stipulations, placing it upon the same 
footing, in this respect, as other kinds of property. 

Some misunderstanding as to the construction. of this clause in 
the treaty of Ghent having occurred between the parties, it was 
agreed, by article five of the convention of 1818, to refer the dispute 
to some friendl}' sovereign. The Emperor of Russia having been 
selected a referee, made his award on the 22d of April, 1822, in 
favor of the claim of the United States for compensation ; and on 
the 30th of November, 1826, a definite sum was determined on 
between the two Governments, which was soon thereafter paid for 
the removed slaves. 

Again : two vessels, with slaves on board, the Comet and Enco- 
mium, were wrecked, or put in in distress, at Nassau, on their way to 
New Orleans, and the slaves were liberated by the local authorities 
of the island. The Federal Government made demand upon that 
of Great Britain for damages for the act of spoliation of private 
property, and compensation was made, and the money received into 
the Treasury and i)ai(l out to the claimants, under the act of Feb- 
ruary 18, 1843. Thus, the British Government, more just than a 
large portion of the people of some of the confederate States,, ad- 
mitted the right of property in slaves upon the high seas, and be- 
yond the jurisdiction of local law, while under the national flag, 
and upon the claim of the United States, paid the full value of those, 
lawlessly seieed and set at liberty by their own officers. 

A similar recognition of property in slaves, and, as such, its chiini 
to Federal protection, runs through many of our early Indian treaties. 
In the treaty with the Dclawares, made September 17, 1778, they ex- 
pressly contract to surrender slaves found among them. The last 
clause of article four is as follows : 

"And it is further agreed between the parties, that neither shsiU entertain or give 
countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect, in their respective Stiites, criminal 



6 

Tugitives, servauLs, or slaves: but the same to apprehend and secure, and deliver to the 
Stiite or States to which such enemies, criminnls, servants, ov slaves respectively belong." 

The same provision, in substance, and nearly in words, is con- 
tained in the treaty' made with the Cherokees, November 28, 1785; 
in that made with the Choctaws, January 3, 1786; and in that made 
with the Chickasaws, January 10, 1786. 

These historical facts, resting upon a full acknowledgement of 
the right of property in slaves, demonstrates a policy not hostile but 
protective to the institution as it existed in the several States. 
They might be fortified by abundant citations from the annals of 
American jurisprudence, I shall content myself with a few only, 
of undoubted authority with those who attempt to clothe the new 
dogma with the mantle of antiquity. In the case of the Common- 
wealth vs. Ames, decided in 1836, and reported in 18 Pick. Rep., 
193, in which it is held that the State constitution had abolished 
slavery there, Chief Justice Shaw, in delivering the opinion of the 
court, says : 

" But notwithstanding these strong expressions in the acts of the colonial Government, 
slavery, to a certain extent, seems to have crept in, not probably by force of laiv — for hone 
tuck is found or known to exist — but rather, it may be presumed, from that universal cus- 
tom prevailing through the European colonies in the West Indies, and on the continent 
of America, and which was fostered and encouraged by the commercial policy of the 
times. Thus it was so established is shown by this : that by several proviuciffl acts 
passed at various times in the early part of the last century, slavery was recognized as cx- 
uHing in fact, and various regulations were prescribed in reference to it.'' 

And again, in the same opinion, he declares : ,^ij 

" But although slavery and the slave trade are deemed contrary to natural right, yet 
it is settled by the judicial decis-ions of this country and of England that it is not contrary to t/ie 

law of nations." 

A similar view of the subject is taken by the supreme court of 
Connecticut, in a habeas corpus case brought before it in 1837, and 
which is reported under the name of Jackson vs. Bullock, 12 Con. 
Rep., 41. In delivering the opinion of a majority of the court, with 
which was the chief justice, he expresses himself thus: 

" It is said, however, that this is not our law, because slavery exists here to a certain 
oxtent. It cannot be denied that, in this State, we have not been entirely free from the 
evil of slavery, and a small remnant still remains to remind us of the fact. So far as 
slavery is sanctioned by law, so far those who are to expound the law are to give it 
elfect, but no further. How or when it was introduced into this State we are not in- 
formed. We find no traces of it in our earliest; statutes. It probably crept in silently 
until it became sanctioned by custom or usage. Did it depend entirely upon custom or 
usage, perhaps it would not be too late to inquire whether a custom so utterly' repug- 
nant to the great principles of liberty, justice, and natural right, was that reasonable 
custom which would claim the sanction of law. But we find ibat, for nearly a century 
past, the system of slavery has been, to a certain extent, recognized by various statutes, designed 
to modify, to regulate, and at last to abolish it : and thus ive think it has received the im- 
plied sanction, at least, of the Legislature." 

I beg, also, to quote an extract from the dissenting opinion of 
two of the judges, as delivered by one of them, (Judge Bissel.) He 
says: 

" I maintain that the State of Connecticut, from time immemorial, has been, and to a 
certain extent, notv is, a slaveholding State. This is too clear to admit of dispute. At 
what time or in what manner slavery was introduced, whether by force of some statu- 
tory provision, or in accordance with the commonly received opinions of the day, that 
the institution was not opposed to the laws of God; it is not easy, nor is it important, to 
ascertain. But as early as 1711, a statute was enacted recognizing slavery as then ex- 
isting, and providing for the regulation of the reciprocal rights and duties of master and 



slave. It vras then enacted that all slaves set at liberty by their owners, in case tbey 
come to want after tbey are set at liberty, shall be relieved by such owners, their heirs, 
executors, and administrators. This provision has been retained in every subsequent 
revision of our statutes, and was re-enacted almost in terms at the revision of 1821." 

And in his* able discussion of the subject he adds: 

^' Still, the principle ivas recognized and actfd upon, that one man might have properly in 
another; might command his services for life without compensation, and dispose of him as he 
would of any other chattel." 

Permit me to cite, to the same point, the very clear admission 
contained in the opinion of Judge McLeaji, in Prigg's ea.se, which 
will be found at page 660 of the 16th volume of Peter's Kcports : 

" At an early period in our history, slavery existed in all the colonies ; and fugitives from 
labor were claimed and delivered up unckr a spirit of comity or conventional law amonp 
the colonies. The Articles of Confederation contained no provision on the subject, and 
there can be no doubt that the. provision introduced into the Gonstiintion was the result 
of experience and manifest necessity. A matter so delicate, important, and exciting, 
was very properly introduced into the organic law."' 

Such is the unbroken current of authority to the fact of the al- 
most universal diffusion and recognised existence of the system of 
African slavery as the normal condition of the race upon this con- 
tinent, and in opposition to the party dogma that denounces and 
seeks to denationalize it. But it_ is still urged that the policy of 
the fathers was decisively against its extension beyond the limits of 
the States, and that the Republican party only intend to carry that 
policy out. In proof of this, the restrictive ordinance of 1787, enact- 
ed forthegovernnient of the Northwest Territory, is appealed to. 

When the Federal Constitution went into operation, it found 
this restrictive law in force, and it w^as only so far altered as to 
make its provisions conform to the change in the Government. 
But this enactment does not prove that such power was intended 
to be conferred upon the Federal Congress by a Constitution after- 
wards made, uor does the application of the restriction to territory 
lying immediately behind the States which it was well understood 
would soon become free, and in the direct line of their westward 
emigration, show that the principle was intended to be one of gen- 
eral policy. If such was the purpose, it is difficult to assign a rea- 
son for their failure to give it expression in comprehensive terms 
applicable to future territory acquired, or to insert it in the funda- 
mental law. 

But, whatever may be the force of the argument drawn from the 
fact, it stands confronted with other and opposing facts. 

The State of Kentucky, soon after, with the assent of Virginia, 
was admitted into the Union slaveholding territory. The grants 
from North Carolina and Georgia, of the land between their west 
boundaries and the Mississippi river, were upon the express condi- 
tion of its remaining thereafter slaveholdino^ territory; and as eucii 
it was accepted and held by the Federal Government. If the 
Northwestern Territory was reserved for settlers from the free 
States, it is equally true that the other cessions were kept free and 
open to the ingress of settlers from the slave States. Till a recent 
period, indeed, all our acquisitions have been of slaveholding ter- 
ritory. This was the condition of the territory obtained from ^pain 



10 

and from France. Nor, indeed, for the first half century of our 
national existence, was an_y successful attempt made to apply an 
anti-slavery restriction to them, except in the instance of the Mis- 
souri compromise line, in 1820, adopted as an alternative for a 
measure still more obnoxious, and striking directly at the equality 
of the States. 

But, Mr. Speaker, dismissing this topic, I propose to devote the 
remaining portion of my time to an examination of the plans of 
pacification which have been offered to the House. And permit 
me here to say that I have listened with great pleasure to the able 
and generous speech iraraediatel}^ preceding my own. If there 
were found among all the Representatives of the people the same 
amicable and conciliatory temper as that evinced by the gentleman 
from Illinois, [Mr. KellogCt,] even yet we might hope not only for 
the retention of the States now meditating the contingency of a 
withdrawal, but the restoration even to the Union of such as have 
already gone out. 

The SPEAKER. The hour fixed by the House for taking a re- 
cess has arrived. 

Mr. WINSLOW. I move that, by unanimous consent, my col- 
league be allowed to close his remarks before a recess is taken. 

There was no objection ; and it was so ordered. 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, impart 
more force to the observations I have submitted than by incorpo- 
rating among them an extract from the speech made in the House 
the other day by the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. How- 
ard,] in which he recapitulates the many acts of \vrong committed 
in the northern States, and which have produced results upon the 
public mind we are here this day compelled to contemplate. He said : 

" Then, sir, in this case it is very evident that the northern States were the aggress- 
ors ; and if they really at heart desire the preservation of the Union, let them first correct 
the errors at home. Let them do equity before they demand equity at the hands of 
others. Let them come into court with clean hands and pure hearts, for they laid the 
foundation of the present difficulties and dangers that now beset us, by the nullifying 
nets of their own Legislatures. Let the northern States immediately, and without delay, 
repeal the obnoxious laws that now are upon their statute-books. Let them cease to 
obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. Let the e.-cecutivea of those States 
respond promptly to the legal demand of the southern States, and yield up the fleeing 
criminal to justice, to be tried by the laws of the States which he has violated, and not 
undertake to obstruct the settled comity of States by the interposition of pettifogging 
technicality. Let them cease their incessant abuse, vilification, and misrepresentation 
of their southern brethren Let thom cease to make crime honorable by holding out 
rewards and inducements for its commission. Let them cease to commission and send 
forth their emissaries to stir up the unsuspecting slave to insurrection, to murder, rape, 
arson, and all other crimes known and recognized by the calendar — not that they have 
the slightest interest in the happiness and welfare of the slave, but that thej^ may use 
his condition for political effect. Let them cease to entice the slave from his master, 
and to remove him beyond his reach and control. Let them cease to endanger the lib- 
erty and liappiness of twenty-si.T million people to obtain that of four. Let them not 
stand up in the Halls of the national Legislatui'e, and boast that they are eighteen mil- 
lion strong, and they are prepared in tlieir strength for their southern brethren if they 
do not submit to such terms as they may dictate. Let they themselves be loyal to the 
laws, the Constitution, and Union, before they demand and enforce loyalty at the hands 
of others. Let them do these things ; for everj'^ evil which I have enumerated is in ex- 
istence among them, and not one has, in the slightest degree, been exaggerated.'' 

And again, in regard to the fugitive-slave law, he proceeds : 



11 

"Theu, I ask, bus tliia law beeu obeyed ami enforced in the uoitherr. titnies ? Every 
one who is acquainted with the history of the country is ready to answer in the nega- 
tive. It is these act* of disobedience ui)on the part of the noriliern Stixtci- that is so 
rapidh' alienating the two sections from each other, and is dipj^inp nn impassable trnlf 
between people that should have always been one, and which demands at the handa of 
all loyal and law-abiding citizens an open condemnation and reproach. Twelve of the 
northern States have not only refused to enforce its provisions, but have actually passed 
laws in direct violation of its spirit and letter, and in hindrance of its execution." 

This is the testimony of a northern man to a series of provcjca- 
tionsof liis own section, which are the primary and chief causes of 
the dangers and difficulties in which the country is involved. 

I cannot say what will be the policy of the State which my col- 
leagues and myself have the honor to represent. I know that in 
all her past history North Carolina has been true and faithful to 
all her covenant engagements under the Federal Constitution. 
Although, in common with her southern sister States, she deeply 
feels the wrongs inflicted on her, she has patiently endured them, 
and is unwilling to be a party to the destruction of the fabric of 
Government which Washington and his compatriots formed and 
gave us, so long as her honor and her rights are safe within the 
Union. What her action will be, we shall soon know, through a 
convention of her people about to be called, whose voice, I may 
say for all, will be the rule of conduct for her own loyal citizens. 

There is time yet to make a peace-olfering to her. There remains 
an interval in which those who hold in their hands the destinies of 
the Republic may tender some reasonable guarantee and compro- 
mise, under which she ma}' remain in the Confederacy, secure still 
in the possession of all her just rights. 

Politicians within her borders have not appealed to a disloyal 
sentiment among her people. It has never been prudent to do so. 
And standing as she now does by the side of the very State which 
lirst moved in the great drama of revolution, she maintains calmly 
her own steadfast position, strong in her attachment to the Union, 
and firm in her purpose to maintain inviolate all her own constitu- 
tional rights within it, if they can be. She has already, through 
her Legislature, pointed out those remedial measures she deems 
material to arrest the progress of disunion. 

Early in the present session one of the few remaining statesmen 
of the age which has passed, yet lingering awhile in the Senate, 
offered, in a spirit of conciliation, a plan of adjustment for our na- 
tional dissensions. Later still, not discouraged at their unkind re- 
ception, he asks that his propositions may be submitted to the pop- 
ular vote, that a rc^^ponse may come, not from politicians here, but 
from that mighty power behind, which will ultimately dispose of 
this and all other issues. The propositions came from a just and 
patriotic heart; from one soon to retire from the public service with 
the honors of a long life devoted to his country's good, and the af- 
fections of a grateful people; and whose retirement, during his 
remaining years, I fervently trust may be blessed with the memory 
of successful efforts to preserve the peace of that country and re- 
store harmony to its distracted parts ! 

Shall there be hesitancy among us in going with him to the com- 



12 

mon altar, and pledging our united support to a plan so full of 
promise for the preservation and perpetuity of the Union ? The 
men of this day and generation, who put themselves in the way of 
the accomplishment of the patriotic object of the Senator from Ken- 
tucky, may have a fearful reckoning to make for results growing 
out of their persistent opposition. 

And now, what does this plan propose ? 1 shall not enter into 
an examination of its other parts, but coniine myself to that which 
disposes of the territorial question, in which lies the chief obstacle 
to a compromise. 

It must be remembered that, b}^ the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, and admitted 
by the President elect himself, citizens of all the States, with their 
slaves and other property, have the right to enter npon any part 
of the public domain, and purchase and possess the same, according 
to the laws of the land. 

The proposition is, that the South shall secure a recognition of 
this right under a common Constitution and Government, as de- 
clared by the court, to so much of the territory as lies south of the 
Missouri line, on the terms that the ingress of slavery upon terri- 
tory north of it shall be prohibited. It is, in substance, to make 
partition between contending sections, whereby the North will 
have more than three-fourths, and the South the residue of the en- 
tire territory now held b}- the General Government. 

To insure greater accuracy, I submit a tabular statement, fur- 
nished an honorable Senator from Kentucky, by the Commissioner 
of the General Land Oflice : 

Statement of the surface of each Territory in the United States, showing the part north and the 
imrt south of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude. 



Territory. 



Kansas 

Nebraska.... 
Minnesota... 
Washington 
New Mexico 

Utah 

Indian 



Whole surface. 


North of par- 




allel 36° 30'. 


Sq. miles. 


Sq. miles. 


126,283 


126,283 


342,438 


342,438 


81,960 


81,960 


193,071 


193,071 


256.309 


40,629 



220,196 
67,020 



1,287,277 



220,196 
16,730 



1,021,397 



South of par- 
allel 36° 30'. 

Sg. miles. 



215,680 

50,290 

265,970 



in this settlement we simply ask that agitation maj'' cease. We 
propose that an acknowledged right of emigration to the entire pub- 
lic domain may be conceded by all political parties to a fractional 
part. We do not seek to exclude any of the population of the 
northern States from a joint occupancy of the portion open to emi- 
gration from those which are slaveholding. The whole is open to 
the North — a very large part exclusively so. 

Mr. CAREY. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. I de- 
sire to know if, by the decision of the court, you have all you can 



IS 

expect by tlie compromise, what is the necessity of that compro- 



mise : 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. The gentleman will allow me 
to ask him one question in reply. "Will he carry that decision of 
the Supreme Court bona Hole into execution ? Will the Nortii do 
that ? 

Mr. CAKEY. I have no disposition to resist the decision of 
any constituted judicial tribunal. 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. I desire to know whether the 
gentleman recognizes the right of the slaveholder to protection of 
his property according to the decisions of the court? 

^Ir. CAREY. Whenever that decision is made, we shall cer- 
tainly acquiesce in it. 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. Now, to satisfy the gentleman, 
I will show that Mr. Lincoln admits that that decision has been 
made. 

Mr. CAREY. I will relieve the gentleman from the necessity of 
doing that. I know the decision has been claimed ; but that par- 
ticular [loint was not in issue, and it was never argued before the 
court. That was a side decision of the court. 

Mr. SIMMS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I 
understand that the gentleman denies that the Supreme Court of 
the United States, in the Dred Scott case, has decided the question 
that a citizen in a southern State is entitled to the protection of the 
Government for his slave property in the Territories of the United 
States, because, he says, that question was not before the court. 
I would ask the gentleman, if that question is made distinctly be- 
fore the court, and the Supreme Court shall decide that the slave- 
holder in the United States is entitled to go into the Territories with 
his slave property, and to have it protected by a law of Congress, if 
necessary, will he carry that decision into execution by voting for 
a law to protect that property ? 

Mr. CAREY. I deny that Congress has any power to pass a law 
to regulate property in any State or Territory. 

Mr. SICKLES. Suppose the court decides that it has? 

Mr. CAREY. When that decision is made, I will agree to it. 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. That there may be no misap- 
prehension of what the court has decided, I beg to refer to the head 
notes of the case to which reference is made : 

" Every citizen has a right to titke with liim into the territory any article of property 
which the Constitution of the United States recopfnizes as property. 

" The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the 
Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more aulhoritv 
over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of 
any other kind." 

Again, in a spuech made in New York, February 27, 1860, by 
the President elect, he uses this lanffuaire : 

" Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed point in your fa- 
vor. Not quite so. But, waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, 
the courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The courts have sub- 
stantially said : it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and 
to hold them there, as property ." 



14 

Now, I would be very glad to know from my friend from Ohio 
whether he is willing, in good faith, and in loyalty to that tribunal 
which is charged with the express duty, under the Constitution, 
of deciding constitutional questions, and questions arising under 
laws passed by the Congress of the United States, to give us the 
rights which such decisions secure ? 

Mr. CAREY. I certainly will. There is one question which I 
wish to be distinctly understood upon; and that is, that I never 
can recognize that human beings are property. If they have the 
right to take their slaves as property under the Constitution, there 
is no question but that the property must be protected by the au- 
thority which protects other property or rights. But I say that 
question has not been decided by any court of the United States 
that I know of. 

Mr. SICKLES. I would ask the gentleman if that question is 
not decided by the Constitution of the United States, in that clause 
which requires direct taxation to be imposed ? 

Mr. CAREY, I know that, in the Constitution, shaves are called 
persons ; and they are represented as persons. 

Mr. SICKLES. Suppose, under the Constitution, direct taxes 
are impos&d: would slaves be regarded as persons or property ? 

Mr. CAREY. I cannot answer questions put by so many per- 
sons. 

Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. I must resume m3' argument. 
Mr. Speaker, the great error of gentlemen upon the other side is 
produced by supposing that there is an incompatibility between 
persons and property. Slaves may be persons, and they may be 
property. Our slaves are recognized as persons, when they are 
counted as part of the population upon which representation is 
based; as property when they are required to be surrendered by the 
States into which they escape when fleeing from the owner's ser- 
vice. Let me illustrate this point by a short quotation from the 
argument of Mr. Curtis, in the case already referred to: 

•• It cannot be denied that the general principles of international law are broad enough 
to cover this case. Slaves are looked upon in all codes in two lights, a.s persons and as 
property." 

They are, then, both persons and property. They are not mere 
chattels, but also moral and responsible beings, and the use of such 
a term in describing them, which apparently denies them such at- 
tributes, and has doubtlessly produced much unfounded prejudice 
at the jSTorth, only proves a total misunderstanding of the nature of 
the relations of master and slave. Slaves are punishable for the 
crimes they commit. The master only has such control over the 
person of his slaves as is necessary for the purpose of securing the 
full enjoyment of his services. They are regarded as persons with- 
in the protection of the laws which are thrown as safeguards around 
human life. But they are at the same time in subjection to others 
to whom their labor belongs. There is no incompatibility between 
the two. Obedience and protection are their correlative duties and 
rights. 

I have already eaid that the Crittenden proposition only offers us 



lo 

a part of the public territory — less than one fourth of the whole — 
upon the conditions and terms on which we are now at liberty to 
occupy and enjoy every acre of it. Why, then, it has been asked, 
do we desire limitations upon risrhts we already possess ? and why 
do we require any constitutional change in reference to the Terri- 
tories ? The answer is obvious. It is for the purpose of having^ 
quiet and repose ; it is that we may come to a common understand- 
ing of our respective rights and duties ; that liereafter slavery may 
cease to be, as for the first thirty years of the Republic it was not, 
a subject of political agitation. This is what the South secures and 
in securing so much, she surrenders to the exclusive occupancy and 
control of northern labor, more than three fourths of tlie public 
land. Is this an unreasonable request? Present it to any plain, 
fair-minded man; ask him if, as the North declares, free and slave 
labor cannot associate together upon common territory, without de- 
grading the former, there can be any injustice in making such par- 
tition as will appropriate to each a part ? 

True, it may prove a barren right. We may be unable to retain 
ultimatclv a single foot of slaveholding territory. But we shall 
have established a principle of equality of right, by which the pop- 
ular mind will be quieted, and a fertile cause of strife removed. 
We may bring to a peaceful conclusion embittered controversies 
which have irnpelled us to tlie brink of national dissolution, and 
restore among alienated States such relations of amity and good 
will as bound them in harmony ere the introduction of this element 
of sectional discord, at the admission of Missouri into the Union. 

A word or two more, and I am done. Remarks have been made 
upon this floor calculated to stir up unnatural resentments in the 
hearts of the people. A leader of the Republican party, the honor- 
able gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] declares, if we cannot 
adjust our difficulties, we must fight. He and others insist that the 
forts and other property of the United States in possession of the 
seceding States must be reclaimed, and that the Army and Navy, 
if need be, should be used for their recovery. Although couched 
in language most exceptionable — executing the laws and maintain- 
ing the Constitution — the proposition conveys a meaning which 
cannot be misunderstood by any one who seriously contemplates 
the practical and necessary consequences of the policy of coercion. 
It loads directly to internal, general war. It means that the people 
of the United States shall stand hereafter, face to face, not as now, 
representatively in these Halls of legislation, to deliberate upon 
grave matters of common concern, but in armed array, to settle 
elsewhere disputes that should admit of peaceful solution here. 
Let me warn those into whose hands the Federal authority will soon 
pass against forcing the issue to such extremity. Far better, if 
separation and division must come, and the States cannot remain in 
Union longer, that they part in amity and peace. 

I rejoice" that there are at the North gallant and true men, still 
willina: to stand by the constitutional rights of every section. I 
cannot omit mention of one, a young and gifted Senator, bruvej^on 



16 

other fields, but with higher moral courage od that arena of his well 
won fame, who earliest among the friends of conciliation lifts his 
voice, in words of solemn remonstrance against a rash and fatal 
policy, that pursued, would light throughout the land the flames of 
fratricidal strife. May his eloquent appeal, ere it be too late, meet 
an answering echo from his couti^men, which shall rescue the na- 
tion from the only greater calamity than disunion — civil war, with 
its train of unutterable woes and sorrows. 

But, I turn to more cheering signs, whose light breaks through 
the over-hanging darkness. The North seems awakening to a sense 
of the impending peril. Deputations of her ablest and best men 
are bringing to our doors the collected will of the people, demand- 
ing of their representatives the prompt settlement of the question. 
Two hundred and fifty thousand voices have spoken, conmianding 
the adoption of the Crittenden plan, or some other subtantially its 
equivalent. Shall we accept these tokens as evidence of a return- 
ing sense of what is due an injured section ? Will the North agree 
to that adjustment? I desire not to look beyond the failure of all 
attempts to compromise. 

The South expects, and anxiously awaits, the response to the of- 
fering of the Senator from Kentucky. Adopt it, and the shadows 
will flee from the political firmament. Again, I believe, we shall 
see every star blazing in its original brightness upon the nation's 
banner. Then, we may even hope, that prostate old oak, lying at 
the root of the young palmetto over our heads, may be no longer 
the emblem of a subverted and broken Union; and in the return- 
ing brotherhood of our early days, we shall find fresh assurances 
for the perpetuity of institutions, the birth-right of this and the in- 
heritance of succeeding generations. Those will have done much 
to deserve the regards of posterity who, by word or act, may do 
aught to accommodate existing difterences and reawaken those feel- 
ings which animated our soldiers when they stood in serried ranks 
upon the fields of the Revolution in defense of American liberty, 
and our fathers when they afterwards met in council to secure and 
establish it. 

One noble life was sacrificed for the compromises of 1850. It is 
embalmed in the memory of a grateful people. And what is life 
worth: what all the honors, emoluments, and offices which men 
can bestow, when contrasted with the high and noble service of sav- 
ing the liberties, the rights, and interests of a whole nation of free- 
men, and of preserving and perpetuating the only form of free gov- 
ernment that nowMuspires the hopes and gladdens the hearts of op- 
pressed humanity throughout the world. God speed its consum- 
mation. 

W. H. Moore, Printerj Penn. Avenue, corner of 1 1th street. 



54 W 




\^ .. -^ •" ^° ^ "^ <^ 














-^^ ''^'. "w" A'v "^Z .'^\ x^yg 










■"""vVtRf"" H a)"V 
BOOKBINDINC ■ <f> • 

C<ant>ille Pi ■ j^ 






^'^.r. 
<■ 



k. ' * 



Marcf »P'> ;98< 




